7.  The applicant, Tinna Romlin, is a Swedish national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Sollentuna. She is represented before the Court by Mr Ulf Jacobson, a juris candidate, practising in Stockholm. The Government is represented by Mrs I. Kalmerborn of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, as Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
8.  The applicant suffers from rheumatoid arthritis. On 14 December 1989 she applied for a disability allowance (handikappersättning) under Chapter 9, Section 2 of the Social Insurance Act (Lagen om allmän försäkring, 1962:381) on the grounds of incapacity due to rheumatoid arthritis and asthma.
9.  On 20 March 1991 the Social Insurance Office (försäkringskassan) of the County of Stockholm rejected the application, finding that her need for assistance and her additional costs due to her handicap did not attain the level required under the above provision. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against this decision to the competent administrative courts, in proceedings which ended on 30 December 1994 when the Supreme Social Insurance Court (Försäkringsöverdomstolen) refused her leave to appeal. No oral hearing was held in those proceedings.
10.  In the meantime, in August 1993 the applicant reapplied for a disability allowance. On 20 January 1994 the Social Insurance Office decided: 
“As from January 1993, [the applicant’s] additional expenses because of her reduced functional capacity entitled her to a disability allowance at the level of 69 per cent of the basic amount [basbeloppet].”
11.  The applicant, represented by a lawyer, appealed against the Office’s decision to the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of the County of Stockholm, claiming that the reduction in her functional capacity caused by her handicap and her need for support had remained unaltered at any rate since August 1991 and that she should have been granted a disability allowance as from then. She invoked the existing medical reports and requested the court to obtain the opinion of experts in rheumatology and to hold an oral hearing.
12.  On 4 May 1995 the County Administrative Court rejected both her requests and gave her two weeks within which to indicate the further circumstances she wished to invoke and to submit final written observations. By a judgment of 22 June 1995 it upheld the Social Insurance Office’s decision.
13.  The applicant, through her lawyer, appealed against the above judgment to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) requesting it to carry out an investigation in order to establish the extent of her disability and additional expenses for the period from August 1991 to December 1992 and to hold an oral hearing.
14.  In December 1997 the Administrative Court of Appeal rejected her request for an oral hearing and gave her two weeks to complete her submissions in writing. On 5 January 1998 it refused her leave to appeal.
On 9 February 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) rejected the applicant’s request for an oral hearing and gave her three weeks within which to submit additional written observations. On 25 February 1999 it refused the applicant leave to appeal.